Dragon1-1

Right, 11 years, then. In any case, mid-2000s.

That's how it should work. If not using using the radar, you should also see the seeker diamond track the flare.

Will the heaters tracking flares before launch be a thing in the next patch?

Fine, I ask one thing of you: don't accuse other people of anything, ever again. It'll be easier that way. We are paying attention, all right, and so far you offered exactly zero support for any of your accusations, instead trying to baffle people with BS, bogus "logic" and JMSU. Not a shred of real evidence, just a lot of handwaving. Quit that, and your condescending tone, and all will be fine.

They kept them around for nine more years after that, though. The Tomcat was retired in 2004, at which time the airframes were really showing their age.

Usually, by having $5M to spend on the plane, plus change for the license to fly it. If you're the kind of person who throws $5M around, passengers are easy to come by, too. GA is a miscellaneous lot, you have people who take flying seriously, and them you have those for whom the plane is just a status symbol and a fun toy. The latter are unlikely to invest in learning how to properly operate it in all but the simplest situations. Avoidable goofs are bad in commercial airlines, but as far as GA goes, the only universal standard is having the money. In theory, the pilots' license is supposed to indicate basic competence, but the same can be said of driver's licenses.

Note that the Viper only works like that with gear down, because you could scrape the speedbrakes on the runway a bit too easily otherwise. If you deploy the speedbrakes fully with gear up, they'll stay open.

The problem might be focusing too much on normal operations and not enough on emergencies and unusual scenarios. DCS is nice in that it throws you into a variety of situations, and if you get hit, you may have to deal with any number of failures. Some airlines do that, some decide to skimp on it, and pilots don't always fill that gap on their own accord.

Actually, they would have been glad to keep them around, despite all those reasons. The real problem was that the airframes were so worn out they were simply unsafe to fly from a carrier. Witness the progressive reduction of the G limit with each revision. Carrier traps are very stressful on the aircraft, and the metal can only take so much. They had to retire them before they started coming apart mid-flight, or worse, during trap or a cat shot. Land based Iranian Tomcats lasted for longer because dry hangars and long runways don't but as much stress on the metal, particularly the wing box, than flying from the boat.

Or it might be a transliteration of a Russian transcription, which when pronounced in English produces the wrong sounds. The peculiarities of English pronunciation mean that in order to get something that sounds right when said aloud, you usually have to mangle the spelling. Using the spellings the US military did is probably the way to go, that's what people will be familiar with. The locals probably won't care for how the name is rendered in English, since there seems to be no preferred transcription in most cases. It's not restricted to Afghanistan, BTW. Ask a Vietnam-era Phantom jock about Xépôn or Sepon, you'll be lucky if he's heard of it. Ask him about Tchepone, and it'll be a different story. For what it's worth, "Tchepone", when said with an American accent, should actually sound more like the original (Lao) name than "Sepon" (and good luck trying to get them to pronounce "Xépôn").

Why not both? It'll probably be a full module, and HB has a good record of including multiple variants. So maybe we'll get both, especially since S is an improved J.

Yes, and none of them are quite as unforgiving as DCS is. Try the Spitfire in the other WWII sim, then in DCS, and you'll see. Remember, that other WWII sim was (or rather, its predecessor), for a long time, the benchmark for realism in flight simulation in general, not just WWII. That was the best we had. They also start you with a very docile Yak-1 or LaGG-3. While people coming over from that sim will fare better than a complete rookie, DCS doesn't simplify low speed handling like their previous one does, plus it models prop torque, a major omission in practically every other WWII sim. From personal experience, I couldn't figure out how to avoid ground-looping the Spit on every landing until I went back to basics and to less powerful planes. Still a handful, but at least I can land straight. And I was hardly a rookie when I started tackling it. Others are more forgiving (mostly because they have tailwheel locks), but only just, except the Mossie, which is even meaner if mishandled.

Turnabout left/right -> in place left/right, or hook left/right (USN and USAF, respectively) Rotate -> cross turn 90 left/right -> tac left/right (though 90 left/right is correct, too, as it is for other angles) 30 left/right -> check left/right 30 Widen -> Kickout (USAF, not sure about USN) Shackle is the same everywhere, as is Close Up. Note that this list is compiled from various sources, including CNATRA docs, Speed and Angels, and the other Viper sim.

This part was in response of you suggesting starting with a WWII plane. For that particular case, DCS doesn't even have a decent trainer. The F-16 is really easy to fly. The Spit? Only as long as you don't try to take off, land, or fight in it (and even then, you need to know about trim). In fact, WWII fighters in general, for someone coming from less realistic titles, will be a struggle. DCS could use a taildragger that won't try to kill you before you're even off the ground, which is to say something like the O-1E. I think the L-39 might have been intended as a sort-of entry point, being the original trainer module. Most people pass it over, but I do think a trainer it can make you a better pilot if you put your mind to it.

Does it just copy DCS menu verbatim, as usual, or can we use US terms as well?

You'd be wrong, especially these days. Really, we've got it good in DCS, in that people here are somewhat willing to learn the ropes. Gaming world at large? Duh, that's why it's a trainer and COIN aircraft. Doesn't change the fact it can dodge flak just fine, can avoid SAMs (if the pilot knows where they are) and can terrain mask. With proper support and planning, you can use it against a peer adversary. You just have to actually do all the things you should be doing when planning an A-10 mission more interesting than a standoff JDAM/LGB/Mav truck.

I'm glad we finally agree. You just said it can be accurate, and you also said the makers decide how accurate it is. HB seems to have decided they want it to be accurate, hence... it is (or it will be once they finish making it). Your words, not mine. I mean, thanks for making my point for me, but I don't think you realized it when you wrote it. I don't get what else you're trying to say, other than you're being condescending, while also showing your exceedingly poor grasp of logic. You need to stop accusing HB of lying without any proof of them doing so. That's what you're doing, though you obviously don't realize that. You're saying that HB is free to decide whether it's accurate, then next, you're saying we're pretending it's accurate (let's pretend nobody can see that "early access" tag, but that's neither here nor there), despite HB having clearly stated that it really is going to be accurate as possible. So either they are lying, or you aren't thinking logically. I am pretty sure which one it is. Let's not even get into your flimsy attempt at equivocation, what with treating accuracy as a scale in one sentence ("more accurate", "less accurate"), and as a binary choice in the next ("accurate", "not accurate"). I'd accuse you of arguing in bad faith, but I always try to assume the most charitable explanation, so I'm going to put it up as another lapse in your line of reasoning. My point exactly. It's not different. If you set up and fly historic mission, it's exactly the same principle as a historical reenactment. Tomcat is a piece of history that we're trying to recreate in a simulation, to give people chance of experiencing it in at least some way. For that, it's worthy to strive for maximum accuracy we can get. Nobody is going to show up to a Civil War battle with a WWII Garand and say "but people don't know one old rifle from the other (because I sure don't), so it should get a pass". Yes, they're shooting blanks, but out of period accurate firearms, and that counts. Oh, and IRIAF doesn't fly Tomcats anymore. Ukrainian pilots seem to have played around with ED's F-16 module while they were still lobbying for the real thing, though. Nothing of that has any bearing on whether this is or isn't a good sim, or whether HB needs documentation to make it as accurate as they decided to make it. If your point was, as I suspect, "HB decides how accurate the sim will be, so they could decide to lower their standards and make APG-71 without the docs", then we can pretty much surmise that "maybe, but they won't, and we don't want them to" is the answer. The rest of your nonsense is just distraction from the fact that you're arguing otherwise, which is something which the rest of the community doesn't agree with. The only kayfabe here is you trying to pretend, like an oldtimey wrestler, that you're fooling anyone with your rambling.

...or until you quit in frustration. People don't play a game to crash and burn, especially when they don't get much feedback on why they're crashing and burning. That's the problem, you're advocating figuring things out by trial and error, but that's not a good way to learn, and you can end up with bad habits that'll hobble you further on, just because it was the first thing you stumbled upon that seemed to work. Learning with a less powerful plane allows you to get a feel for this type of aircraft at a slower pace, and with a less demanding airframe. This is more conductive to developing an understanding and building good flying habits. Same with learning on modern jets, quite a few things there work on the basis of "press the magic button, a magic thing happens". Understanding what goes behind this can be really useful. Especially when you one day press the button and the magic thing suddenly doesn't happen. It can be the difference between flipping the switch you forgot to flip and carrying on, and posting a bogus bug report on ED forums. It'd be very polite of those insurgents to go into battle unarmed. As a matter of fact, one of the L-39 variants that come with the module is actually a COIN jet developed from it. Those missions can be fun, too. Yes, defensive systems on those aircraft are similar to F-86, which is to say, you get your eyeballs, the stick, and the throttle lever, plus whatever armament you have strapped on. That's a valuable lesson to learn, too. Not getting shot down begins with good attack planning, keeping a good lookout, and effective defensive maneuvering if engaged. If you can't survive using just that, perhaps you need to fly a few missions in a trainer.

Yeah, so challenging that they're bad for first time flyers for this very reason. I really wouldn't recommend starting one's adventure with taildraggers from DCS WWII birds, especially for a complete newcomer. TF-51 is free, so it's one way to do it, but only if one is not easily frustrated. Quite frankly, for WWII birds, I'd suggest starting with the Piper Cub in the civilian sim. Less torque, actual forward visibility, gentle and slow in all phases of flight. Only attempt to tame one of the fighters after understanding the fundamental principles of taking off and landing in a taildragger. The F-86 is actually quite comparable to the trainers in capabilities and ease of flying. It can be a good choice for a starting jet if you don't care for dual cockpit in MP. However, it's an old module, and it has some quirks. For those who don't care for Korea, it'll be same difference.

No, but it helps. Two cockpits mean you don't need an external app like Discord, and you can both have your controls hooked up to the plane, letting the instructor take over the controls (you can do this in the F-4 and F-15, but these are complex beasts). The L-39 (dunno about others) even has an IFR hood, which is useful for, wouldn't you guess, learning IFR. Yes, you can learn in a combat aircraft, the thing is, there are things that are just easier to understand in a trainer. Most combat aircraft we have are equipped with various flight assists and have a lot of power available to compensate for your lousy flying, and navigate by GPS. Take away all that, any you start learning. Not just flying, but airmanship. You have to learn to navigate by map, landmarks and ADF. You find out why the overhead pattern exists. You learn to read the dials, not just HUD numbers. You learn to precisely control airspeed, dive angle and pipper position in order to bomb accurately. Sure, you can go out of your way to learn those things in a modern jet, but in a trainer, they're necessary. If you only ever intend to fly modern aircraft with GPS and all the aids, and aren't really interested in airmanship, then by all means, start with the modern jets. However, learning to bomb the F-5 or L-39 is useful for refining your ground attack technique with CCIP, while radio navigation and reading dials are useful skills in older jets (yes, you can learn that there, but something like the Phantom is a quirky, complex beast). Those skills also come up if you make a jump to WWII. There's value in those less capable jets, too, and their switchology is quite easy to learn.

Says the one who constantly confuses the meaning of every big word he tries to use. Literally nothing you wrote aligns with how those terms are actually used. You're either a non-native speaker butchering the translation, or trying to impose on us the jargon from some obscure sub-sub field of computing theory. You also confuse wrestling jargon. Kayfabe is pretending you're not playing pretend. Nobody here does that. We want to play out fictional scenarios (or just compete) with simulated military hardware. Nobody here, even the cockpit builders, is pretending it's a perfect recreation of real jet, just one that's reasonably close for what we're trying to do. As for the other terms: Emulation is using software to recreate the operating environment (not necessarily down to the hardware level) on which the original programs can run. Simulation uses a physics model to approximate the behavior of the real thing. This model is typically "fitted" to reality by making sure it matches the values in the documentation. That's what DCS does. The FM is a bunch of equations that are tweaked until the curves for the virtual aircraft's Ps and Qs match those in the charts for the real aircraft. A properly fitted model can be extrapolated, with lower accuracy, to areas that aren't in the chart. Other systems work more or less the same, while they can have some simplifications for performance reasons, you couldn't tell in the cockpit, because you've only got a few hydraulics gauges, not a realtime readout of the whole system. The key takeaway here is that it's the simulation of the aircraft as a whole, as experienced by the pilot and RIO. Simulacrum is an imitation, like a historical reenactment. Yes, an FM based fully on lookup tables would qualify more as a simulacrum than simulation, but only AI uses that in DCS. Human-flown aircraft are simulated. Well, you might be surprised to hear, then, that HB is only using SME feedback to confirm the information they get from documentation, as well as tune the general "feeling" of the aircraft, which all that subtle, minor stuff (like the various crocks to keep the ACM panel buttons from falling out) that is not in the docs and is largely subjective, anyway. Nobody remembers enough data to accurately simulate a complex aircraft system, anyway, so while you can tweak things based on SME feedback, you can't rely exclusively on it. HB is not "softening some edges", but compensating for limitations of user hardware. Ultimately, the goal is to be able to take procedures and advice that worked for the real pilots and apply them in DCS. We are not sitting in a real jet and pulling real Gs that can be felt, so compromises need to be made. Even with that, flying the virtual F-14 is actually harder than the real one, because you don't get the same feedback pilots do. Seriously, what you're doing is the very definition of JMSU. You seem to be trying to bamboozle people by waving your hands and alluding to some illusory complexity that means nothing that runs on a home PC can have any relation to reality. The truth is, back in the day they used flight training software that was much inferior, both graphically and in terms of fidelity, to DCS, though they'd usually have a cockpit on some kind of motion platform (this is completely out of HB's hands, I might add, but some people build themselves one of those). Nowadays, of course, the professional state of the art had advanced. DCS might be an an entertainment product, but it doesn't mean it can't be accurate, nor does it mean it's not worth trying to make it accurate.

Seems like you don't even know what kayfabe is. They're not pretending they're going to get an actual emulation of the radar. What you call "facsimile" (another word you're using incorrectly) is in fact a simulation of one. Which is defined as something that doesn't work exactly like the thing it's simulating, but you can't tell from the cockpit, because the results you get are essentially the same. An emulation would replicate every wire and IC that comprised the AWG-9, and it would chug computer resources for no good reason. It might be more correct in some extreme edge cases, but nothing that would actually come up in normal use. What we are doing is a simulation of the aircraft and its components. Nobody is pretending otherwise, so there's no kayfabe to speak of. What you don't seem to understand that to simulate the systems, documentation on how they are supposed to work is required. Because how would you know your simulation is good otherwise? An emulation would allow you to reproduce undocumented or even previously unknown behaviors, but for a simulation, most things need to be explicitly programmed in. Also, just FYI, "old hearsay" is not usually accepted as a source, unless you want to call SME feedback that, in which case they could get offended at a random ignoramus questioning their years of experience. HB had consulted people who actually flew the Tomcat for the USN. Do you want to tell them they all suffered a mass hallucination and don't know what they're talking about? No, ED decided to lower the standards of what, for their purposes, constitutes a sufficiently accurate simulation. And then, as far as we know it's only for the F-35. In any case, it's certainly not a reason for HB to lower their own, higher standard of "sufficiently accurate". In every case, there are compromises to be made, primarily because of the hardware we use to interact with the sim. That does not detract from the quality of the simulation, or from the effort required to achieve that quality. I suggest you spend some time educating yourself, starting with the meaning of the words you use. You make a lot of bold claims and wave your hands a lot, but I haven't seen a single shred of evidence. File a bug report, then. This would indicate the animation in cockpit is incorrect, and it'll be incorrect for everyone in this case. I don't think the animation being done this way is a design choice. In fact, the throttles should also move sideways when crossing the AB detent, they should probably take a look at this, too. It's a cosmetic thing, but it'd be nice if they did get it right (plus, clear feedback when exactly you hit the detent helps with calibration).

No. Again, check Mover's videos, and the charts. He's done it. Not sure with what, but he mentioned having to throttle down in order to stay at corner. With 50% fuel and an AA loadout, the Block 52 gets TWR of 1.24 or so. If you unload the jet, you should be able to accelerate straight up, at least at sea level, no matter the speed you're going at. That said, the Viper is a pig at 200kts and you know it. A competent Viper driver will not be at 200kts. Yes, this can be used against it, but in general, in a dogfight getting slow is only use if your opponent is also slow. If you lose tally, you're dead either way, IRST or not. The time it'll take you to use IRST to cue you back onto the Viper (assuming it's even within its FOV) is the time he'll use to get on your tail. Sure, you can improve your tally-keeping ability in first place, but real pilots generally are able to keep their eyes on the bandit. Small size does enhance the Viper's ability to turn the radar off and bushwhack from down low, like MiG-17s used to do to Phantoms. This will probably come up on DCS servers more than in actual Red Flag, but it's something. If we're talking such small numbers, and there are now F-16Vs with AESA radars, too. I don't know the parameters, but it's doubtful that variant will have any problems finding anything that isn't a dedicated stealth fighter. There's no question there odds are stacked against it, the question is whether it's so bad that the Viper has practically no chance of winning. Real results (that you seem so desperate to dismiss) answer that one with pretty resounding "no". Your advice for a Viper going against, say, the Eurofighter amounts to, "there's no use, eject". This is completely useless. Instead of focusing on how "there's no way for the Viper to win that match", you could try to come up with something useful, like what the Viper could do to win, or at least give the EF a solid fight. The Eurofighter will certainly be the most challenging opponent for the Viper in DCS, in that you'll have to outskill the bandit by a significant margin to win.

Ships in DCS are simplified, and they have way too much hitpoints. AGM-88 would do nothing. IRL, it's not a good way of dealing with a ship's radar, either. It could damage one of the antennas (ships typically have a lot of them), but it won't do much otherwise.

That's a little strange, but even so, what I said is still valid. It's possible there's a bug, or perhaps some misbegotten DCS optimization from ye olden days that completely shuts off guidance when the missile logic detects it can no longer make the intercept (note that in such case, the solution changes rapidly, it wouldn't take a lot of time before that happens). Of course, that's unrealistic, the AIM-9X is smart, but not that smart (heaters have no way to know the range to target or its closure, so they can't make that determination).